View full sizeThis August 2010 photo shows the Nike campus from the air. Torsten Kjellstrand/The Oregonian

Before the Washington County Board of Commissioners formally considered a proposal helping Nike to expand locally, county officials reviewed and helped write some of the company's public testimony.

Emails and documents obtained by The Beaverton Leader offer a rare, if incomplete, glimpse into the close relationship between the county and the company. The county has not disclosed what incentives it offered Nike to expand near Beaverton because all county employees and commissioners are bound by non-disclosure agreements signed last September at the request of the global shoe manufacturer, records show.

But this much is clear: The county was in the loop about everything from comma splices to the precise wording of how Nike would hedge its bets about its future site.

County spokesman Philip Bransford said the county routinely offers technical assistance to businesses on ordinances that pertain to them. The county has deferred all comment about the emails to Bransford.

Nike spokeswoman Mary Remuzzi said the company asked the county for a template for the planning changes they were requesting. Bransford said because no previous template existed, the county wrote a draft in line with the "company's goals."

In early April, Nike formally asked Washington County to relax building height restrictions northeast of Jenkins Road and 158th Avenue. Nike wanted permission to construct buildings up to 110 feet tall and signage up to 160 feet tall.

But before the formal request was submitted, county and company officials worked together on crafting the request, records show. In particular, the letter was carefully vetted by the county's government relations manager, Jonathan Schlueter. On March 25,county land-use spokesman Stephen Roberts sent Schlueter an email with two copies of the company's letter – one a draft with tracked changes, the other a clean, updated copy.

"Both incorporate your recommended changes," Roberts said.

Four days later, Nike attorney Jack Orchard sent additional drafts of the letter to Schlueter.

"Please review this draft," Orchard said in a March 29 email to Schlueter. "If you have comments, please don't alter the draft but discuss your comments with me. Thanks."

Most of the changes in subsequent drafts amount to semantic refinements and it's not always clear which party made the edits, but they show the careful, private collaboration between corporate and public officials on a public request.

On April 16, the Board of Commissioners held its first public hearing on Nike's new request. There, Julia Brim-Edwards, Nike's senior director of government and public affairs, gave the company's support for the ordinance but offered little in the way of certainty about the expansion.

Again, top county employees already knew what Brim-Edwards and corporate architect Michael Monnier were going to say. It's not unusual for those speaking at public hearings to bring copies of any prepared testimony. But in Nike's case, Brim-Edwards had emailed tracked changes of the testimony to Schlueter over the weekend.

"Not final yet," Brim-Edwards wrote April 14. "Still doing an internal review."

In another email that day she included edits from other Nike officials.

Ultimately she would deliver brief and circumspect comments.

"At this time we have no current plans to announce but it would be prudent for the county and Nike to establish common understandings so potential future development could most efficiently occur," Brim-Edwards said.

The only comment from the commissioners came from Commissioner Dick Schouten, who lauded Nike's work in Washington County.

Two days later, the company announced it would be expanding in Washington County rather than Portland.